About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
and comprehensive package to shrink the deficit by $1.8 trillion over 10 years and are meant the fiscal uncertainty that hampers economic growth and job creation. this remark does not represent the starting point for negotiation. represent tagamet savings and additional roadrunners for those of the. the two cannot be separated and were not separated last december when we were close to a bipartisan agreement. this budget provides achievable solutions to fiscal problems, the crucial a solution desired, we have to do more than focus on deficit and debt. the significance of balancing the budget is clear as ranking member then holland noted, i hope negotiate the groundbreaking agreement with congress to do just that as budget director oversaw three budget surpluses and worked with many on the left in right on a plan to pay off our debt. that does not mean we should make deficit reduction are one and only priority. in addition to ensuring sound fiscal fitting we will have everyone of these initiatives paid for in our deficit reduction package can i mean day donati done to the deficit. as the president ex
deficit at or close to $1 trillion for five straight years. millions of americans are out of work or living in poverty. the highest rates we have seen in a generation. the administration's response seems to be more of the same. more spending higher taxes and record debt. what we can't keep spending money we don't have. we need a new approach. we need an approach that encourages economic growth. the longer we delay fundamental reform. the longer we delay a real recovery. our national debt is weighing down our country like an anchor. it's weighing down our economy. it's making it harder for us to get ahead. the administration claims that if we approve the budget we'll have reduced deficit by 4.3 trillion. this is not true. i want to break it down and they'll show me how. the administration said we reduced deficit by police $2.6. the president is responsible for all the policy enacted before when he was in office for the first two years. if you add back the money for the stimlis, the payroll tax holiday, the 24% increase in domestic spend. total deficit reduction when you net it out
faces significant problems and if we don't address the deficit, i've become more and more convinced that we don't necessarily go gradually and problems that could go precipitously and i say that with reference to 2008 and the crisis that there is, even when things go pretty well, there are some lurking dangers within our economy. one would be interest rates rising. i asked this to people i consider to be smart, big bankers, nature capital centers of the world. can they control just raising keep interest rates below? is there a point at which the central cannot keep pace. interest rate to 7% are when i was a kid, 19% were 21% would be catastrophic with this burden of debt. he seems to work right now, but there is a certain allusion of wealth in the stock market and evolution of the peace we can manage our debt. those are my concerns and because of that, we have to do long-range things. i propose several things since i've come. i propose fixing a security problem. to me it's an actuarial problem. you raise the age gradually 27862 thirds of the social security deficit. fix the remainin
aancedproach to deficit reduction and strengthen the middle class. as i said, last week our focus in the next little while will be on guns and budget, talked about budget. i will be joined by my colleague, congressman mike thompson of california. congressman thompson is a vietnam vet, a wounded vietnam vet. he is a gun owner, hunter. is the head of our task force on gun violence prevention, and he is a co-author of the bipartisan bill in the house with peter king. to put forth a manchin-toomey compromise that failed, so sadly, in the senate last night. we are so disappointed. our sorrow was expressed so appropriately by president obama last night that i invited mike to join us here to tell you where we go from here and to answer the question that people are saying what can we do to change this. mike, would you speak -- thank you for your leadership. >> thank you, leader pelosi. it's a pleasure and honor to join you, to talk about and to answer any questions that you guys may have on gun violence prevention. -manchin amendment that failefailed last night, as i thk everybody knows. it was every
forward a comprehensive balanced approach to deficit reduction to eliminate the sequester, but this is congress' responsibility. it needs to take action. >> there is a couple of bipartisan group of senators making proposals. senators says the administration has the right to prioritize spending, and the senator suggesting the furloughs are postponed to give congress another chance to revisit sequesteration, other senators, republican and democrat, asking the transportation secretary and head of the faa if they might be able toe move money around. what's your response? >> well, a couple things. one, i think the fact that various lawmakers suggest remedies confirms what i said, which is only taking action to the result of the sequester that republicans insisted take place, but let's be clear about the faa cannot take because of the way the budgets are structured and the way the law imposing the sequester is written. they are required by law to cut about 1 billion dollars between now and end of the september. that's 637 million from the faa. the faa initiated a series of cost
significant problems, and i think if we don't address the deficit, if we don't address it, i've become more and more convinced that we don't necessarily go gradually into problems, that we could go precipitously into a problem. and i say that with reference to 2008 and to the crisis. that i think there is even when things seem to be going pretty well, there is and are some lurking dangers within our economy. one would be interest rates rising. and i ask this question all the time to people i consider to be, you know, smart, big bankers, people in the major capital centers of the world, can we control interest rates and keep interest rates low? is there a breaking point at which the central bank cannot keep interest rates at this point? because interest rates at 5%, interest rates of 7% or when i was a kid, interest rates of 19 president or 21%, i think, would be catastrophic with this burden of debt. seems to work right now, but i also think that there's a certain illusion both of wealth in the stock market and an illusion of the ease at which we can manage our debt. and so those are my con
-inflicted wounds without adding one penny to the deficit. we've provided money, the money is there, we haven't spent it, we don't need to. we can use the savings from wrapping up two wars to avoid the full brunt of the sequester's arbitrary cuts. the congressional budget office said that would score; that money is available, it is money we could use. funding for the operation in ir a afgan has in alled overseas contin yeype account. since the worst of the seq cuts are creating an emergency situation, we should consider using thighs funds to offset their impact. these really are emergencies and we should do it. i am not proposing we use them to offset the entire sequester but congress has the power to avert the most painful sequester cuts using these mexico. 28 republicans in the senate and 174 republicans in the house would impose these sequester haphazard cuts. if those same republicans work with democrats, we could act to protect families and businesses and ensure our national defense and save millions of americans hours waiting at the airport. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presi
today to address three issues. number one, the economic deficit of less skilled immigration. the u.s. work force is changing american family is having fewer children and birthrates are now well below levels. 10,000 baby boomers are retiring every day. and the lush and her workers coming behind them are much more educated than their parents. in 196064% of american workers were high-school dropouts. today the number is less than 10%. together these three factors have had a dramatic effect on the pool of americans available to fill low-skill jobs. it is no accident that my members are constantly complaining about the difficulty finding workers. the pool have to draw on a shrinking. for those seeking higher, unskilled man of prime working age the supply of u.s. workers is literally half the size it was in 1970. if a thing, demand is growing. in $0.195,525 of every dollar spent on food was spent in a restaurant. today it is $0.50. one of the fastest growing occupations in america is some help aid. many less skilled immigrant workers and only then increasingly in years ahead. aside from
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)